Women "need to know this", eh? That sounds a bit retro. I wonder if Doris Day knew it? I do agree that a single woman can alter the behavior of a group of men in the most startling fashion. This can be either for good or ill.

Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience. There isn't always a woman right there on the spot pushing otherwise inactive men into action, but I'm obviously referring to a larger category.

"Althouse constantly bitches for more stuff for women, and she gets to be a civil rights heroine. And, she's a white woman! Althouse constantly bitches for more stuff for gays, and she gets to be a civil rights heroine. It's an astonishing coincidence, I know, but her son's gay!"

Ironically, just this morning, I was "bitching" to Meade about his contention that I misused the word "constantly." (In the shoe post: "The problem with the kind of shoes these shoe-freak ladies are buying is that they are never comfortable, so it's less that they'll continue to fit than that they never fit. There's always a fantasy that these new shoes you're trying on really do fit, because they feel okay in the store. Later — like a boyfriend who seemed so good at first — they'll hurt you. And so you constantly need replacements. This looks cute. ")

Meade said I should have used the word "continually." I said "constantly" is hyperbole.

Uh...I read the article, so I don't understand the post/thread headline and intro. Only one man, not "men", was influenced by Ms. Winkler to take action, and it was Ms Winkler and two other women who pulled both men (the intoxicated guy who fell first and the guy she inspired to jump down to help) up to safety when the one man rescuer couldn't do it all.

This was teamwork, men and women, not some magical inspiration by a woman to motivate two men. She motivated one guy and he was about to die if she, and two other women, hadn't assisted him. Good for her for taking part, not just talking.

some of that male compulsion is cultural, e.g., that "Officer and a Gentlemen" stuff that feminists complain about, till it works to their advantage. note, some cultures, not all. Reminds me of a racist/sexist joke:

Westerner sees a Bedouin man riding his camel down a road, followed by 2 wives and 4 kids.

Several months later he comes across the same man, on a diferent road, this time the 2 wives are leading the camel with the 4 kids out front and the Bedouin is trudging behind them.

Westerner says, "Women's Lib?"Bedouin replies, "No, Landmines"

all cultures are not the same...

Part of the complusion is genetic, and varies with the age of the female and males. Males of a certain age are compelled risky demonstrations in front of a nubile young woman...

Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience.

Voices in the head is your rationale? Are you in Colorado? If someone asserted women have the voice of the Patriarchy in their head so they merely owe everything they accomplish to men would that be taken as a serious argument?

Anyway, I'll make this list right after you list the contents of all women's consciences for our review.

"Crap, I thought Althouse understood and was just underplaying the irony of the attention-whoring woman being willingly called a hero and standing in front of cameras while the guy who actually put himself at risk just did it and left."

I intend that point to be implicit and find that extremely interesting.

"Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience. There isn't always a woman right there on the spot pushing otherwise inactive men into action, but I'm obviously referring to a larger category."

"Uh...I read the article, so I don't understand the post/thread headline and intro. Only one man, not "men", was influenced by Ms. Winkler to take action, and it was Ms Winkler and two other women who pulled both men (the intoxicated guy who fell first and the guy she inspired to jump down to help) up to safety when the one man rescuer couldn't do it all."

I'd say the guy who jumped down on the track at her behest was pretty strongly influenced!

Of course, those 350 or so NYFD guys rushed into the World Trade Center and sacrificed their lives for others. Most of them were white.

Their reward... endless lawsuits to exclude white men from the NYFD, enforced by dumbing down tests for entrance fo the academy to the point where over 95% of applicants pass the test, so that NY could chose new firemen according to racial and sexual quotas.

Maybe white hetero guys should just leave the weak and endangered to die.

rhhardin suggests that all would be well if the trains entered the station more slowly. Most do enter slowly (10 mph or so)' particularly at stations like Bowling Green where the tracks curve into the station, but there are a few conductors who take it faster.

Part of the problem is how the rescue is attempted -- climbing up to the platform which is about 5 feet above the track bed. That's a tough climb even without the extra weight of the drunk you're trying to push up. And the clearance between train and platform is narrow, to avoid having a large gap when riders are boarding at the station.

At the end of most station platforms, there is a stairway down to track-level, intended for the use of work crews. If the drama is unfolding near the platform end, it will normally be easier and quicker to high-tail to the closest end and get back up that way. The platforms aren't that long, and so you wouldn't be more than 125 to 150 feet from either end. The train will be slowing down anyway, and so it should be possible to pull that off even if ( as in this story) a train suddenly starts coming in.

That strikes me as a better alternative to getting in the middle of the two tracks ( between the two 'live' third rails), which is often suggested as a way to avoid being hit if you we're in that spot.

But when panic takes over, the 'climb up' idea may be all anyone can think of. I suspect every NYer has wondered what they would do if they found themseves on the tracks, whether having been pushed or trying to help someone else. Glad to say I've never been put to that test.

Ann Althouse said... Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience. There isn't always a woman right there on the spot pushing otherwise inactive men into action, but I'm obviously referring to a larger category.

Most heroism by men is in combat, not subways. It is well documented that mothers are not the motivators of heroism in combat.

What I don't understand is this constant and continual anti women crap that I read in these comments sections. You can not give a woman credit for this, really? The man who jumped down to help and then walks away silently deserves credit too, but the attempts to minimize what she did, with her voice, her insistence is her power.the other women who helped her and the man ALL deserve credit.

Even women here continually favor the male in most of these blog posts that deal with women. Why do women do this? I see this in conservative women who lean libertarian most times. I truly do not understand it.

I'd say the guy who jumped down on the track at her behest was pretty strongly influenced!

Yes, he was...but he was one man, not "men." Furthermore, he was potentially going to die, with the guy he was dragging to the platform edge, if he had not been assisted by three women working together with him for a good result. Hence my "teamwork" theory.

I'll concede that Winkler influenced one guy to make the first effort at saving the man...and had the gumption to step up and help herself when the task proved at risk of failure.

It boils down to a man who just departed after the incident and a woman who got noticed. Fact is there'd be two dead men if not for the teamwork. YMMV...

What Dust Bunny said above--my experience with observing heroism is derived from my combat experience. In a military setting, men did what they did on behalf of their comrades. See the writings of Morris Janowitz, the outstanding military sociologist who did major post WWII studies of men in combat. There were no voices in their minds. In fact heroism probably involves divesting yourself of all the admonitions such as "dont run with scissors" etc. Acts of heroism run counter to basic individual survival advice. Fathers and mothers have nothing to do with them.

rhhardin said...If the trains entered the station slower, they could always stop in time.

That would slow down the operation a bit, which is apparently too high a price------------------And if we lowered the maximum speed allowed in reg road driving to 15mph and 25 on our highways, thousands of lives could be saved each year!

Your point, rhhardin?

And Mayor Bloomberg's Big Gulp regulation undoubtedly will prove, by enforcement of that regulation, to save a couple dozen fatty's lives over the long haul, each year, from Type II diabetes complications.

Inga...your comment would have more impact if you cited some names of who, male and female, is demaning in you view.

What I said credits both the woman, who in this case performed both as the organizing action person and also participated physically herself. Good for her.

However, this is not much of an example of women per se motivating men to take actions they might not take otherwise. I'd give it a "close but no cigar" ranking...because I think both the guy who jumped down and the women who physically helped him share the credit for action.

One day at the pool, I was standing 100 feet away from the diving board talking to my pediatrician when a young child fell off the diving board stairs, about 20 feet onto the rubber matted concrete and remained unmoving while the 16 yr old lifeguards called 911. I STRONGLY urged repeatedly to my pediatrician to at least talk to the boy while waiting for the ambulance to arrive, which he finally did, giving great comfort to the boy, his mother, and the lifeguards in charge. I think there is a very strong natural inertia to get involved and a bit of panic. As you debate these ideas in your head and try to decide what to do, it helps to have someone else there, whose opinion you respect, urging you to do what you ultimately know is the right thing.

Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience---------------Give me an example of any woman that accomplishes anything in their lives not listening to the voice of Daddy.."Do it for Daddy, overcome your infantile girlie emotions and don't cry! Make your Daddy proud of you".

So the ultimate credit goes not to the woman for hectoring the men to do something on the train tracks, but to each woman's careful listening to what her inner Daddy expects.

Daddy is proud of you Ann! Just as each woman's Daddy is whenever that woman does what he told her to do.

Shouting Thomas said... Of course, those 350 or so NYFD guys rushed into the World Trade Center and sacrificed their lives for others. Most of them were white.

There are a number of Puerto Ricans and Blacks in the list, and one could argue there would have ben more if the employment practices had been different. But there sure are a lot of Irish and Italian names. All men.

I have posted before on 9/11's about the story of 300 firemen, all men, with turnout gear, air tanks and coils of hoe line headed up the stairs to their doom. A Chaplain in the lobby, giving all those irish, Italians and pr's mass absolution as they climbed to their deaths.

I would postulate, that they went because a Captain said "Follow-me" and none would not go.

Wasn't the guy pushed onto the tracks just as the train was entering the station? A bystander would have had to throw himself on the ground at the edge of the platform and pull the man up and out of the way of the oncoming train without being pulled onto the tracks and all in one motion. Aside from the question of the strength needed the thing happened so quickly and with so little time to react that there was no time for a team reaction (the puller prone and one or two men holding and/or sitting on his legs to keep him from being dragged onto the tracks as he made his attempted rescue). I find it hard to fault the failure to act near suicidally in this circumstance.

There are instances in which onlookers do not act. We've all seen those videos in which someone is being beaten up, or has fallen down, had a heart attack, etc. and just lays there, with someone videoing it and others just standing there inert.

I takes someone with a voice, or with physical power to step forward and help, doesn't always happen and when it does the person who initiated the action deserves credit, be it a man or a woman.

Seriously, jobs with risk involve the setting of norms and standards that make the people within the job or duty role do what someone without the training and psychological manipulation wouldn't do.Firefighters are motivated in training with clear expectations of what their comrades have done in the past, standards they are expected to also embrace if they are "worthy".

The military is all about taking civilians and getting them into a behavioral state where they will do things far outside a normal civilian risk-reward construct.Training does not dwell much on soldiers family being proud of them for risking life, follwing orders...but on approval of peer soldiers.After all, life and actions in the military often run counter to what Mom and Dad said you should do. Things like "be nice to others, don't hurt anybody" from parents have to be discarded from necessity..into yes, for my side, no, for how the enemy is dealt with. To the extent that they factor into military indoctrination - it is as agencies that will be "proud" of their soldier child if they do a good job and are brave.

OK. If women ultimately deserve a measure of credit for a man's heroism, do women deserve a measure of the blame for the lack of a man's heroism? Has the mother of the cowardly man failed him in some way?

The original hero [the one who jumped on the tracks to save the stumblebum] left the station and his identity remains a mystery.

No shit! If his wife founds out he put HIS family at risk for some useless drunk his ass is toast. Women love it when some OTHER guy plays the hero. They're not often looking for their own man to put himself, and by extension his family, at risk.

Back when there were towns west of the Mississippi with a saloon on every corner and the nicest place around was the local parlor house, it didn't end until women said, "OK, we'll bear your children, tend your wounds, cook your meals, and mend your clothes, but there are going to be churches and schools and law and order".

Not so much Mom, as the way Emmy Lou's bustle wiggled when she walked.

My experience is that women tend to restrain their men from heroism because they are afraid that their guy will get hurt. Heroism is frequently (usually?) not the rational thing to do but guys do it all the time anyway.

Heroism is more a matter of courage than strength. Testosterone probably plays a big role and partially explains why men are so much more heroic than women.

Inga, it's just too much fun tweaking you, especially since you apparently view yourself as intellectual and peaceful, but you quickly devolve into an hysterical, shrieking bitch whenever you're challenged.

My experience is that women tend to restrain their men from heroism because they are afraid that their guy will get hurt. Heroism is frequently (usually?) not the rational thing to do but guys do it all the time anyway.

Heroism is more a matter of courage than strength. Testosterone probably plays a big role and partially explains why men are so much more heroic than women.

Roger and Drill may disagree, but heroism is often when somebody just reacts. The guy who falls on the live grenade isn't thinking, "Mom will look great receiving the Medal of Honor in my name".

We went out everyday and did missions at great risk to ourselves for the sake of our fellow infantrymen. Some of us, to a lesser extent, had our forefathers' experiences in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam in our thoughts as well. I know I did.

We did it it because we were warriors, and we value the respect and esteem of warriors more than anything else.

Come to think of it, it wasn't even that selfish. We did it because it was our job,and if we didn't pull our weight, someone else would have to do it, or someone's flank would go uncovered, or there'd be one less rifle pointed downrange when the fight was on.

This idea that we did it for women or for the sake of our mothers is bollocks. Utter tripe.

Hell, my mom told me right before I deployed she had a lawyer friend who said he could get me out of it.

Edutcher--while I cant speak for Drill, I agree entirely with your assessment. I have been involved in some close scrapes and I never went thru some sort of cost benefit analysis--I simply reacted, and to this day I wonder what the hell I did and why--and I still have no answers.

Drill SGT - I have posted before on 9/11's about the story of 300 firemen, all men, with turnout gear, air tanks and coils of hoe line headed up the stairs to their doom. A Chaplain in the lobby, giving all those irish, Italians and pr's mass absolution as they climbed to their deaths.

There were many lessons learned on 911. Some not so complimentary - such as the Code of Bravery overwhelming chain of command instructions and police orders to the firefighters to evacuate because the buildings were in danger of collapse. Heroism set lots of them up for needless death - rescue was unlikely for the people on the upper floors and few firefighters outside their ignored supervisors - had situational awareness that they had minutes to leave. Hundreds of the 318 died to no good purpose except as part of the Bush-Giuliani hero narrative on how they all managed to die bravely.

Only 22 police died on 9/11- mainly because the police listened to orders from their chain of command.

A situation often brought up in rescue training is the mass death mindless heroism can cause. Innumerable examples are given. A drowning victim drowning one rescuer, then a second rescuer..a worker at a shipyard overcome by fumes in a tank leading to 11 deaths as one Hero rescuer after another goes in to save the victim, collapses, then more rescuers arrive to rescue the original victim and the rescuers until they too are asphixiated and dead.

That is the lesson of the firefighters and others who rush to rescue without thinking or heeding orders and relying on an internal Creed of Bravery that may get themselves killed on some rescue attempts needlessly.Before any rescue - assess the risk. During the rescue, be heedful your own safety counts for something.

My experience is that young guys naturally like to fight and do crazy stuff (like jumping onto a moving train or jumping from a high cliff into water or racing cars or etc) to show off and to show how brave they are. Guys naturally look for opportunities to show how brave they are.

Women discourage this behavior in their men. The net effect of women on the culture is to decrease the amount of bravery that men exhibit, to make men more civilized but softer and weaker.

C4--your point above is well taken, and since I now am involved in teaching emergency management, I concur entirely. Combat is much different from emergency management. I think the commenters who cite combat are correct. And you are correct when talking about emergency response in a non-combat situation. The basic principle in emergency management is to keep your first responders alive. It is a totally different calculus as you rightly point out.

Roger and Drill may disagree, but heroism is often when somebody just reacts.

throwing one's body on a grenade is not something we trained on :)

However, from the beginning of Basic, on through advanced training, unit drills, etc, there are building blocks of common subfunctions that are drilled repeatedly, so that every soldier in a position knows what the basic duties are.

even the most basic things that a Drill does, that seem like abuse are designed to get trainees to instantly respond to orders in a calculated fashion.

Steve Koch said... Women discourage this behavior in their men. The net effect of women on the culture is to decrease the amount of bravery that men exhibit, to make men more civilized but softer and weaker.

One needs to make a distinction between the woman's behavior when men are auditioning to be her mate, where she may encourage the risk taking as a test, and whether she discourages the behavior in the father of her childen at a later point.

example: young English women handing out white feathers during the Great War.

example: Spartan mom; "Son, here is your shield. Come back with it, or on it"

Give me an example of any woman that accomplishes anything in their lives not listening to the voice of Daddy.. "Do it for Daddy, overcome your infantile girlie emotions and don't cry! Make your Daddy proud of you"....

Seriously, jobs with risk involve the setting of norms and standards that make the people within the job or duty role do what someone without the training and psychological manipulation wouldn't do.

Both comments are well taken. It's silly to think a woman, including Winkler and the other women who got down on the platform to pull two men to safety, were doing it for Daddy.

Second, training and norms and standards, and heart and "sisu" (an untranslatable Finnish word that means a certain combination of guts and perseverance and explains the Finns' Winter War against the Russians) are behind courage in groups as well as solo actions. It takes that untranslatable something to know that you are all you've got and move into danger anyway.

(I take issue, though, with "psychological manipulation" as a motivator in courageous acts. It is more often a motivator in despicable acts.)

"Where do you think I got these--in a bar fight?"--Tammy Duckworth, when asked if women should have roles in combat; referring to her leg prostheses.

Dilios: "Goodbye my love." He doesn't say it. There's no room for softness... not in Sparta. No place for weakness. Only the hard and strong may call themselves Spartans. Only the hard, only the strong.

Give me an example of any woman that accomplishes anything in their lives not listening to the voice of Daddy.. "Do it for Daddy, overcome your infantile girlie emotions and don't cry! Make your Daddy proud of you"....

Seriously, jobs with risk involve the setting of norms and standards that make the people within the job or duty role do what someone without the training and psychological manipulation wouldn't do.

Both comments are well taken. It's silly to think a woman, including Winkler and the other women who got down on the platform to pull two men to safety, were doing it for Daddy.

Second, training and norms and standards, and heart and "sisu" (an untranslatable Finnish word that means a certain combination of guts and perseverance and explains the Finns' Winter War against the Russians) are behind courage in groups as well as solo actions. It takes that untranslatable something to know that you are all you've got and move into danger anyway.

(I take issue, though, with "psychological manipulation" as a motivator in courageous acts. It is more often a motivator in despicable acts.)

"Where do you think I got these--in a bar fight?"--Tammy Duckworth, when asked if women should have roles in combat; referring to her leg prostheses.

I think the commenters who cite combat are correct. And you are correct when talking about emergency response in a non-combat situation.

=================Even the military in combat or non-combat situations has to weigh cost-benefit of "heroic rescue". It is a balancing act. And some things in the military have undoubtedly changed since I was in.

The AF has or had different "creeds" than the Marines or Spec Ops. Risk your guys and yourself putting out a crash fire on base if ordnance may explode otherwise, there is a chance crew is still alive, fire spread to critical facilities...Yes.Risk your life if a jet pancakes down and is outside realm of likely chance any crew survived, no ordnance risks others besides any foolish rescuers? No. Let it burn, hose from a distance, safely collect pieces and parts later.

AF does not believe in the "no man left behind" creed of Spec Ops - outside a certain risk of sacrificing more than one to save a pilot - because that is part of the deal - a crashed pilot in war will expect some rescue effort as part of the deal. It helps with the warrior ethos. But unlike Spe Ops or the Marines, the AF will not risk the living on a corpse retrieval mission.

I take issue, though, with "psychological manipulation" as a motivator in courageous acts. It is more often a motivator in despicable acts.)

====================Call it indoctrination if you do not like psychological manipulation. It is the same thing, and has been employed throughout history.Transforming civilians into willing performers in risky endeavors has always been such. Ancient days sailors in prehistory had their codes and ways of the sea designed to make men risk death daily. We know that because we saw those mariner codes and transformation "customs" pass into early Mesopotamian history as "ancient ways of the sea and sailors" even then.

Heroism is more a matter of courage than strength. Testosterone probably plays a big role and partially explains why men are so much more heroic than women

Biology. Testosterone does affect fear/fearlessness, courage as well as strength and agility. As men age their levels of the hormone go down. This also might explain why most men heroes and warriors are young and why the generals who send them out to do the actual dirty work are generally old men. They participate in warlike and aggressive activities more often when they are young.

Biological facts have nothing to do with dismissing feminine acts of courage. You want to argue that biology is discriminatory towards women? Biology just is. Que sera.

Perhaps now that we have more mechanical means, guns etc that level the biological playing field the testosterone levels or lack thereof may not be such an issue.

However, I must agree with those who say it is easier to be courageous with other people's lives. If it were me on the platform, I have no idea what actions I would take. I don't think I would have the courage to jump down myself because I know my strength limits. Nor would I likely try to pull the two men up from the tracks alone because I would fear being pulled down myself. I admit it. So I do give kudos to those women and men who put themselves in harms way to save another.

elkh1, I think you're looking at this wrong. It was a group effort. The sex of the one doing the urging is irrelevant. As a 5'2" woman, I know I couldn't lug a man off the track. But the urger could have been a man in a wheelchair, a soldier in a cast, a little boy, etc. The thing it took was for someone to see a problem they think urgently needed solving and to compel others to help them. Besides, the women who helped pull the men up were endangering their lives too, because if one of the men panicked, both women could have been pulled down on the tracks, etc.

DBQ, really? Testosterone makes one more brave? Females of many species display amazing courage when protecting their offspring. Testosterone may affect males in many ways, but making men more courageous Than women isn't one of them.

Women today are increasing their combat exposure, in many areas, especially as fighter pilots and pilots of other combat aircraft...such as Duckworth flew. It is not just the Air Force, in fact, IIRC, the USMC had the first female F-18 pilot in then Lt Elizabeth Pham. The Navy and Army are also engaging as Tammy Duckworth (Army) can attest.

It boils down to one major question: Women can enter combat roles so long as they can meet the uniform qualification standards. The cuddle in foxhole issues are for unit discipline to address....but few women will meet the physical strength standards for male infantry grunts, straight leg or airborne. Some day a few may do even that.

One thing that would help is if the various military organization stopped having their female members dress up like girl scouts on parade in skirts, weird blouses, and goofy hats. Same qualifications should mean same uniforms.

Inga..."Cammies" aka Fatigues, BDU's, ACU's, blah blah have changed so often of late I don't know if there is a difference in the combat uniforms...in 2005 BDU's there was a slightly different blouse for females, but I suspect that's been dropped. The Army has just gone freaking nuts with repeated uniform changes, especially in camouflage configurations, and now Class A too...the latest being to do away with Class A greens in favor of some form of dress blues. It is in the formal uniforms that female and male are differentiated the most...to absurdity in fact.

In my opinion, without a bit of humility, no one, no one period, above the rank of Platoon or Gunnery Sergeant, in Infantry, should have a single word to say about combat uniforms.

good grief...what mental contortions women go through to convince themselves that they are 'the power behind the throne'!in all my many years, i've never once "heard my mother's voice" telling what to do. that's a mother's fantasy, not a son's reality.

Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience. There isn't always a woman right there on the spot pushing otherwise inactive men into action, but I'm obviously referring to a larger category.

Rape is not big in the animal kingdom as a way to reproduce. Except those dolphins. So women choose. I keep pointing this out. All that aggressive, bellicose male behavior is on account of traits women selected for. And the lying too, Ann. Women selected for that. It's in the genes.

It took a bunch of men to institute laws to overcome female predilections for male behavior. They instituted laws like though shalt not kill, though shalt not covet they neighbors wife, marriage, stuff like that to deal with the mess women made in the male psyche.

What human being doesn't long for their mother when in pain or trouble? I think it's human nature, if the mother wasn't an abusive bitch

I think there are inter-generational psychosis that can transfer from generation to generation. They may flip, though. Like, a dad screws up his daughter in serious ways, and so she becomes a man hater. Then she takes it out on her son, and he becomes a woman hater, or worse, finds a man hater and marries her, to carry on the psychosis.

Social research after the murder of Kitty Genovese showed that the more people around the incident, the less likely anyone would do anything. Someone else will step up.

In my heroic and dangerous moments, I didn't think of mom or dad or anyone. I had a relaxed focus of mind and saw the solution and pursued it even if it was dangerous to myself. I didn't even care about the danger. A clear hyper focus, and that slow-mo feel of high adrenaline.

You have heard of the fight or flight response--there is actually a third option, freeze. The primitive parts of our brains often have a deer in headlights reaction to threatening events. It takes a little time to move past that and start thinking. The teamwork actually reflects the next place stress goes in our brain--the hippocampus, the social-emotional (metaphorically mammalian) part--reaching out, safety in numbers. Then you can think and reason. The faster you can move through this pathway, the better, when the train is rounding the curve.

The fight flight freeze faint initial stress reaction place in the brain pathway is the amygdala (metaphorically reptilian).

The reasoning and problem solving part is the pre-frontal cortex, uniquely human.

You can see the physical pathway in an anatomy illusation of the brain.

The insula is fascinating, and relates to our level of empathy for others. Usually better developed and more empathy in higher intellect people. Intellect requires perspective-taking so you can see how that works together.

Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.

Inga....vis a vis Marine Service and Dress Uniforms. They certainly been the most consistent and dignified over the years, both Enlisted and Officer. But it is high time, even forthe marines, to get rid of the dorky "girl" uniform and hats. The other services should follow suit for the female uniforms....and the fookin' Army should just stop all the money wasting revisions, period.

The objection is granting women sole credit not only for the entirety of this event but all other acts of courage also. Because.... apparently men hear voices.

Marshal, in one way of thinking this is exactly right. Women do the selecting. They have guided the human race to where it is. We men are puppets to them. I should probably use "female," since it has been going on longer than that. They are the managers of the human race, and deserve huge amounts of the credit for what men have become.

There are a few things that bother me about all this stuff. First, women who want it both ways. They want to talk about how terrible men are, and how good women are, when they made us this way. Second, that there aren't differences between men and women.

Ann is absolutely right when she says the woman was powerless to do the things only men can do. Women made us so we can do it. Why does she have to pretend that, in general, men are different, have different capabilities than men with extremely high likelihood, and be satisfied in doing the things they do best?

Managing the next generation of human beings. And please, when you see nasty qualities in men, don't blame it on the men. Blame it on the poor management.

AA asks: Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience. There isn't always a woman right there on the spot pushing otherwise inactive men into action, but I'm obviously referring to a larger category.

Example: Me. (and nothing to do with the military, btw.)

I've been reading Althouse for something like 10 years now, and I can't remember her ever writing something that showed such a profound disconnect with the reality I live in. Otherwise, I would not have been moved to say something so flagrantly immodest.

Dante said... The objection is granting women sole credit not only for the entirety of this event but all other acts of courage also. Because.... apparently men hear voices.

Marshal, in one way of thinking this is exactly right. Women do the selecting.

But of course this is nonsense. If true women would also blame themselves for all the stupid shit men do. Not only do the vast majority of women not accept this responsibilty, those who do are regarded by most men and women as being wrong.

But of course this is nonsense. If true women would also blame themselves for all the stupid shit men do. Not only do the vast majority of women not accept this responsibilty, those who do are regarded by most men and women as being wrong.

I'm having a hard time divining your point here, Marshal. Nor deciding whether we agree or disagree.

My basic tenet is that there are significant and real differences between men and women. Males and Females have evolved separately for a very long time. We simply are what we are, and modern day cortex level thinking in the pursuit of the abstract fairness, seems to be destroying the social evolutions that have enabled societies to exist with the differences.

Anyway, I do believe there are very exceptional women in the world who can compete with the exceptional men in the world. I suspect the percent of these exceptional women in the female population is less than that in the male population.

No one should force anyone to comply with gender specific rules, though I think that social mores ought to have a very large influence on it.

Marriage is for society's future success, and therefore for the children, not for gays wanting to take advantage of the perks, and to take able bodied men out of the workforce. Let's not tear it down.

Male hating lesbians should be encouraged to set up their isle of Lesbo, and get their toxic hatred out of society. Again, not forcibly. The way this is done is by a rejection of their tripe and bile.

For the record, this is not a Freudian slip. It should be for what "Man" has become, in the sense of the human race. Apologies to anyone offended.

Women are the tool makers. They have been very fine tool makers, and I for one am glad for it.

Of course, they made a few mistakes along the way, and the tools have had to come along and make it better, inventing marriage, among other things, to sort things out. But if it weren't for the managers, we wouldn't be able to do it.

Topic of the post: woman can't get man off tracks, induces man to do it, man walks off without accolades, woman gets accolades.

Translation: women can't carry old farts out of burning buildings. They are too weak, but have made men strong so they can. Althouse absurdity (frankly, looking at the posts, I thinks she has been drinking today, after all, school is out), and claiming because the woman screamed at a man to do it, she is a heroin. Though that ignores the people on the other side of the platform screaming to do something, when they couldn't.

It gets so damned tiring to deal with all the logical inconsistencies of the female mind.

Ann Althouse said... Give me an example of the man who acted heroically and didn't even have his mother's voice in his conscience.

Probably one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

I can assure you that if I had been on that train with my mother, she would have said: "Don't be a fool." I suspect most mothers would have said that. Mothers that are overbearing, tend to produce men who have a limp wrist.

A rifleman needs (in some order)- ability to hump 100+ pounds up hills above 5,000 ft, for days at a time without many creature comforts- a 20 y/o's sense of invulnerability- willingness to take absurd risks to impress others(testosterone helps alot)

Drill Sgt said...A rifleman needs (in some order)- ability to hump 100+ pounds up hills above 5,000 ft, for days at a time without many creature comforts- a 20 y/o's sense of invulnerability- willingness to take absurd risks to impress others

In my opinion only the physical strength & endurance factor to hump is a limiting factor for women, generally, as "riflemen"...aka "grunts."

I've known plenty of women who believe they are invulnerable...some of them are over 40 now and still think it, or know better and don't give a damn.

I'd modify your point about risk taking to moderate the "impress others" part and change it to "motivate others and reinforce unit cohesion" ...e.g., willingness to defend and support those on his/her left and right with all incumbent risks. I suspect that is what you meant...and that I, as usual, must have to make it m more wordy.

I amplify the risk part because there are women who do so every day in some professions and some sports. They feel invincible and risk everything.

If you want an example [which I admit could be an exception that proves a rule] of a woman who very likely could be a "grunt"...look at Alpine Ski Racer Lindsey Vonn of the USA. In the high speed highly strenuous event of "Downhill" she has asked this year to be permitted to race against the men at least in one race. She already has the strength and guts, and glory of multiple world cup championships...but apparently wants to prove just one more thing.

I admire Vonn because I was a hack ski racer in high school and college and I knew what is involved. Lindsey Vonn is by far the finest ski racer from the USA since Buddy Werner, who had comparable guts and courage.

The real material issue for military organizations, pertaining to women in all roles, is logistics...housing and hygiene among other things. However, in many cases this has been or is already being resolved.

The cuddle factors, hetero and homo, remain unit discipline issues. It is an area of discipline in the military today I don't have a lot of faith in...but that is not the fault of recent enlistees.

Drill SGT...yep, I agree that feeling invincible is not a feature of long term pilots.

A long time later counter part of mine flew medivac helicopters in RVN...and he was certifiably crazy and fully believed he was invulnerable. He thought grunts were tougher than he was, had it tougher than anyone else, and therefore it was his duty to land virtually anywhere or hover low, to rescue all he could. He did not remain in aviation long enough for his number to come up...but he pushed it with two tours. IIRC he got a Purple Heart for a nearly spent bullet in the ass at one point.

Just as with men, there are women unsuited for being pilots, but can make fine soldiers otherwise.